Americans Becoming More Pro-Life

[David Williams]

Come back when you have info that isn't bs.

Are you going to keep calling the kettle black?

Some are, some aren't.

[No Water No Moon]

Unless you're arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to medicate chlamydia, because (you believe) they somehow agreed to it when they consented to sex, this is nothing but a huge red herring.

No, the woman would not have agreed to chlamydia because the ejaculation was unlikely to contain such.

Almost every ejaculation contains sperm, and the woman knows this.

According to you, the fact that the woman accepts the risk, means she accepts the reality. If we apply your 'logic' evenly, then consenting to sex equates to consent to chlamydia. Or violence. Or murder. All of which were possible outcomes of simply being in an intimate encounter.

But you don't apply your 'logic' evenly, because doing so would make a mockery of your argument, by pointing out how it is fundamentally nonsensical. People who drive cars do NOT consent to dying in a crash, even though it's a very real risk. People who go mountain climbing do NOT consent to becoming plateau pancake. People who eat do NOT consent to choking.

You consent to an act, and you should accept the risks. That does not mean you CONSENT to the risks, or should be prevented from fixing the problems if they arise.

[Hallistar]

Are you going to keep calling the kettle black?

Some are, some aren't.

Good, then you'd realize that I'm making perfect sense in my post.

[No Water No Moon]

No, the woman would not have agreed to chlamydia because the ejaculation was unlikely to contain such.

Almost every ejaculation contains sperm, and the woman knows this.

Yes it contains sperm, how does that however suddenly put a legal obligation on her to take on a full term pregnancy?

Hm. Food contains calories. I should be prevented from dieting. I should have to deal with the consequences of my decision.

That appears to be the 'logic'.

[Arumdaum]

So less support for the death penalty now? ;o

[AiliailiA]

Unless you're arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to medicate chlamydia, because (you believe) they somehow agreed to it when they consented to sex, this is nothing but a huge red herring.

No, the woman would not have agreed to chlamydia because the ejaculation was unlikely to contain such.

Almost every ejaculation contains sperm, and the woman knows this.

And you support compulsory and comprehensive sex education in schools, don't you?

[Christian Democrats]

No, the woman would not have agreed to chlamydia because the ejaculation was unlikely to contain such.

Almost every ejaculation contains sperm, and the woman knows this.

According to you, the fact that the woman accepts the risk, means she accepts the reality. If we apply your 'logic' evenly, then consenting to sex equates to consent to chlamydia. Or violence. Or murder. All of which were possible outcomes of simply being in an intimate encounter.

But you don't apply your 'logic' evenly, because doing so would make a mockery of your argument, by pointing out how it is fundamentally nonsensical. People who drive cars do NOT consent to dying in a crash, even though it's a very real risk. People who go mountain climbing do NOT consent to becoming plateau pancake. People who eat do NOT consent to choking.

You consent to an act, and you should accept the risks. That does not mean you CONSENT to the risks, or should be prevented from fixing the problems if they arise.

All of your asserted counterexamples are unlikely events.

Pregnancy after engaging in vaginal intercourse is a realistic possibility.

[Christian Democrats]

No, the woman would not have agreed to chlamydia because the ejaculation was unlikely to contain such.

Almost every ejaculation contains sperm, and the woman knows this.

And you support compulsory and comprehensive sex education in schools, don't you?

Do you have statistics on how many women do not know that semen can lead to pregnancy?

[Trotskylvania]

Unless you're arguing that women shouldn't be allowed to medicate chlamydia, because (you believe) they somehow agreed to it when they consented to sex, this is nothing but a huge red herring.

No, the woman would not have agreed to chlamydia because the ejaculation was unlikely to contain such.

Almost every ejaculation contains sperm, and the woman knows this.

Consent to have sex with someone is not consent to have their kids.

Take your medievalist bullshit and stow it. Women do not exist to fulfill your personal standards of modesty and virtue.

[AiliailiA]

What a childish insult.

Interesting to consider though, that by your standards a person who supports abortion under some circumstances would be a "pro-abortionist". If you like, we could start calling your side anti-abortionists instead of "pro-life".

Almost any terms would be better than "pro-life" and "pro-choice". Also, the thread title could be changed from "Americans Becoming More Pro-Life" to "One in Five Americans is Anti-Abortion"

I'm totally fine with that. the definition fits me, because I am against the medical procedure called "abortion" happening. By the way, if you find "Pro-abortion" as a term offensive, don't be offended. the people I associate with call em' "Murderers".

OK, Mr One In Five. I'll take your word for it that I don't want to meet your friends One And Two In A Hundred.

I'm actually more comfortable with your admission to being a radical with minimal popular support, than I am with CD's fluffy assertions that "under some circumstances" means to everyone what it means to him, or that his own rather radical position is in any way popular.

[Trotskylvania]

According to you, the fact that the woman accepts the risk, means she accepts the reality. If we apply your 'logic' evenly, then consenting to sex equates to consent to chlamydia. Or violence. Or murder. All of which were possible outcomes of simply being in an intimate encounter.

But you don't apply your 'logic' evenly, because doing so would make a mockery of your argument, by pointing out how it is fundamentally nonsensical. People who drive cars do NOT consent to dying in a crash, even though it's a very real risk. People who go mountain climbing do NOT consent to becoming plateau pancake. People who eat do NOT consent to choking.

You consent to an act, and you should accept the risks. That does not mean you CONSENT to the risks, or should be prevented from fixing the problems if they arise.

All of your asserted counterexamples are unlikely events.

Pregnancy after engaging in vaginal intercourse is a realistic possibility.

Probability doesn't matter. Consent to sex is not consent to having a child with someone. End of discussion.

[David Williams]

Some are, some aren't.

Good, then you'd realize that I'm making perfect sense in my post.

Why are you even talking about the color of kettle's?
1. It's irrelevant
2. when you look at a kettle it's quite obvious what color it is.
3. Whatever kettle you're talking about show me it and i'll tell you what color it is. otherwise stop talking about it.

If you're using the color of the kettle as a "it's black and white" argument, it doesn't make a single statement other than "I am right".

And i don't see any sense in this :

Pro-abortionists don't have a brain or heart because it makes you feel bad that they're being reasonable and rational?

1. In jobs of the state feelings are to have no relation to it (separation of feelings and state).
2. Abortionists are the most immoral people ever. Understanding the definition of morals, avoiding them is Not reasonable, and Irrational.

[No Water No Moon]

According to you, the fact that the woman accepts the risk, means she accepts the reality. If we apply your 'logic' evenly, then consenting to sex equates to consent to chlamydia. Or violence. Or murder. All of which were possible outcomes of simply being in an intimate encounter.

But you don't apply your 'logic' evenly, because doing so would make a mockery of your argument, by pointing out how it is fundamentally nonsensical. People who drive cars do NOT consent to dying in a crash, even though it's a very real risk. People who go mountain climbing do NOT consent to becoming plateau pancake. People who eat do NOT consent to choking.

You consent to an act, and you should accept the risks. That does not mean you CONSENT to the risks, or should be prevented from fixing the problems if they arise.

All of your asserted counterexamples are unlikely events.

Pregnancy after engaging in vaginal intercourse is a realistic possibility.

And given the prevalence of sexual assault in America, rape is a realistic possibility of just about ANY setting, for an American woman.

That doesn't mean American women 'accept' rape, or should be forced to accommodate it just because they agreed to be... anywhere.

[Trotskylvania]

1. In jobs of the state feelings are to have no relation to it (separation of feelings and state).
2. Abortionists are the most immoral people ever. Understanding the definition of morals, avoiding them is Not reasonable, and Irrational.

Yeah, I'm calling Poe

[Christian Democrats]

No, the woman would not have agreed to chlamydia because the ejaculation was unlikely to contain such.

Almost every ejaculation contains sperm, and the woman knows this.

Consent to have sex with someone is not consent to have their kids.

Take your medievalist bullshit and stow it. Women do not exist to fulfill your personal standards of modesty and virtue.

Consent to have sex with someone is consent to have their kids.

This is because the likelihood of becoming pregnant from vaginal intercourse is high, and the purpose of semen is to cause pregnancy.

[Pootania]

1. Fetuses are both human and alive
2. All human have the right to life
3. Therefore, fetuses have the right to life
4. Women have the right to control their bodies, but the right to life overrides this
5. Therefore, abortion should be illegal

The only instance I could see abortion as an ethical practice is if the mother's life was in jeopardy.

[No Water No Moon]

Consent to have sex with someone is not consent to have their kids.

Take your medievalist bullshit and stow it. Women do not exist to fulfill your personal standards of modesty and virtue.

Consent to have sex with someone is consent to have their kids.

No, it isn't. It's consent to sex, absolutely nothing more.

You don't get to attach obligations to a woman just because she's willing to have sex with you.

[Hallistar]

Good, then you'd realize that I'm making perfect sense in my post.

Why are you even talking about the color of kettle's?
1. It's irrelevant
2. when you look at a kettle it's quite obvious what color it is.
3. Whatever kettle you're talking about show me it and i'll tell you what color it is. otherwise stop talking about it.

If you're using the color of the kettle as a "it's black and white" argument, it doesn't make a single statement other than "I am right".

And i don't see any sense in this :

Pro-abortionists don't have a brain or heart because it makes you feel bad that they're being reasonable and rational?

1. In jobs of the state feelings are to have no relation to it (separation of feelings and state).
2. Abortionists are the most immoral people ever. Understanding the definition of morals, avoiding them is Not reasonable, and Irrational.

Calling the kettle black is a saying which means that you are a hypocrite.

1. Exactly, the feelings should have no relation.
2. Morals according to whom? A denominational interpretation of the Bible? So what if they don't blindly follow it?

[Christian Democrats]

All of your asserted counterexamples are unlikely events.

Pregnancy after engaging in vaginal intercourse is a realistic possibility.

And given the prevalence of sexual assault in America, rape is a realistic possibility of just about ANY setting, for an American woman.

That doesn't mean American women 'accept' rape, or should be forced to accommodate it just because they agreed to be... anywhere.

What is the likelihood of a woman being raped on any given day?

What is the likelihood of a woman becoming pregnant from any given act of vaginal intercourse?

[Hallistar]

Consent to have sex with someone is not consent to have their kids.

Take your medievalist bullshit and stow it. Women do not exist to fulfill your personal standards of modesty and virtue.

Consent to have sex with someone is consent to have their kids.

This is because the likelihood of becoming pregnant from vaginal intercourse is high, and the purpose of semen is to cause pregnancy.

Consent to have sex with someone is simply consent to have sex with someone.

Since the likelihood is high, people use contraception and condoms. Regardless or not, there is no obligation to carry an egg that ended up fertilized to full term.

[No Water No Moon]

1. Fetuses are both human and alive
2. All human have the right to life
3. Therefore, fetuses have the right to life
4. Women have the right to control their bodies, but the right to life overrides this
5. Therefore, abortion should be illegal

The only instance I could see abortion as an ethical practice is if the mother's life was in jeopardy.

1. Cancer is both 'human' and alive. Irrelevant.
2. No, they don't.
3. False conclusion, based on false assumptions.
4. No, it doesn't. If you believe it does, go to your local hospital and try to compel someone to give a transplant against their will.
5. False conclusion.

[Christian Democrats]

Consent to have sex with someone is consent to have their kids.

No, it isn't. It's consent to sex, absolutely nothing more.

You don't get to attach obligations to a woman just because she's willing to have sex with you.

Consent to the act that causes pregnancy is not consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant?

[David Williams]

1. In jobs of the state feelings are to have no relation to it (separation of feelings and state).
2. Abortionists are the most immoral people ever. Understanding the definition of morals, avoiding them is Not reasonable, and Irrational.

Yeah, I'm calling Poe

???
That "can't be sure whether sarcastic or serious" thing?
If I wasn't serious, then i would be claiming that avoiding morals is rational?

And why would I say feelings should be related to the state? I'm the leading "Law should only be based on morals" NSG poster.

[Hallistar]

No, it isn't. It's consent to sex, absolutely nothing more.

You don't get to attach obligations to a woman just because she's willing to have sex with you.

Consent to the act that causes pregnancy is not consent to the possibility of becoming pregnant?

You accept there is a possibility, as with the possibility of getting into a car accident when you drive, and you work to mitigate that possibility.

[Christian Democrats]

Consent to have sex with someone is consent to have their kids.

This is because the likelihood of becoming pregnant from vaginal intercourse is high, and the purpose of semen is to cause pregnancy.

Consent to have sex with someone is simply consent to have sex with someone.

Since the likelihood is high, people use contraception and condoms. Regardless or not, there is no obligation to carry an egg that ended up fertilized to full term.

Do you believe that abortion should be illegal for women who do not use contraception?